Just let me say that while I do appreciate the fact that your work has reduced the former stranglehold of religion to a mere yoke upon us all, I can’t help but scoff openly at your suggestion that science dictates the “survival of the fittest”. First of all, let’s quibble a moment about the definition of “fit”, shall we?

Your theory may be accurate for other animals in the animal kingdom. I don’t dispute evidence that proves that other species have been able to adapt to their environments more successfully over time through advantageous genetic mutations caused by environmental factors. However, to apply this theory to humans, which, rather than adapting to their environments, attempt to adapt their environment to them through brute force, is sheer folly.

Brute force and the willingness to use it has become the single most determining factor in survival. Fitness is not even in the equation any longer. A sadistic, obese, half-blind, deaf idiot in a wheelchair with a gun, a drone, or a bomb can kill the most intelligent, strongest, genetically superior specimen in terms of perfect eyesight, hearing, and reasoning skills developed over generations to ensure the survival of the species in less than a second, and they often do.

Your “survival of the fittest” theory is now only used as a tool to enable these idiots to justify their violence and proclaim themselves the fittest by virtue of having survived! They believe that their title of “fittest” entitles them to enslave the rest of us with impunity. A pox on your theory, Mr. Darwin, which failed to take the development of “modern” weaponry into account.

My definition of “fittest” includes far-seeing---those capable of thinking past their own survival to the survival of the planet and the species as a whole. It does not include those who use brute force or sell future generations into slavery to ensure their own survival.